If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, any law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer employed pursuant to § 3.2-6555 in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer employed pursuant to § 3.2-6555, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. Except as provided in subsection C, any person who, by threats or force, knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, any law-enforcement officer, or an animal control officer employed pursuant to § 3.2-6555 lawfully engaged in his duties as such, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

C. If any person by threats of bodily harm or force knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, any law-enforcement officer, lawfully engaged in the discharge of his duty, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court relating to a violation of or conspiracy to violate § 18.2-248 or subdivision (a) (3), (b) or (c) of § 18.2-248.1, or § 18.2-46.2 or § 18.2-46.3, or relating to the violation of or conspiracy to violate any violent felony offense listed in subsection C of § 17.1-805, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer or an animal control officer employed pursuant to § 3.2-6555 who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer or an animal control officer employed pursuant to § 3.2-6555 who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Note that the above says "in the course of conducting and investigation of a crime by another."

How about this scenario:

An open carrier is stopped by officer as a result of a man-with-gun call. The open carrier is not breaking any laws. The officer asks the open carrier if he is also carrying any concealed weapons such as a knife. The open carrier tells the officer no, even though he has a legal pocket knife on him. How would this qualify as obstruction of justice?

Note that the above says "in the course of conducting and investigation of a crime by another."

How about this scenario:

An open carrier is stopped by officer as a result of a man-with-gun call. The open carrier is not breaking any laws. The officer asks the open carrier if he is also carrying any concealed weapons such as a knife. The open carrier tells the officer no, even though he has a legal pocket knife on him. How would this qualify as obstruction of justice?

The problem is you have no idea if the officer is actually conducting a investigation of a crime. They do not have to tell you they are. So in the above scenario if there has been a crime committed in the area, or it is a traffic stop and you lie you can be charged with obstructing. You do not have to be the object of the investigation to be charged.

To add you also do not have to be guilty of a crime, or even suspected of one. The officer does not even have to be correct, they only have to make the claim of investigating. It would be a tough one to disprove.

Last edited by WalkingWolf; 01-14-2014 at 04:12 PM.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

Interactions with police.

I see nothing wrong with a polite exchange of greetings with members of law enforcement. That is just common courtesy. However, when I start getting a barrage of questions, especially questions phrased in an aggressive or insulting manner, then I start asking, "Why am I being detained?" and, "Am I free to go?"

One word of caution that each of you have heard multiple times; If you aren't recording audio, video, or both, you are wrong. A recording, in a lot of cases, has been a lifesaver for a lot of folks. Also been the instrument of seeing a rogue officer taken off the streets in a few.

"Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
"I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
"The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

Note that the above says "in the course of conducting and investigation of a crime by another."

How about this scenario:

An open carrier is stopped by officer as a result of a man-with-gun call. The open carrier is not breaking any laws. The officer asks the open carrier if he is also carrying any concealed weapons such as a knife. The open carrier tells the officer no, even though he has a legal pocket knife on him. How would this qualify as obstruction of justice?

Making a false statement to a "Special" agent of the FBI is a crime. It's why Martha Stewart went to prison.

It's not a crime in Virginia. But we dodged a bullet, because it was very, very close, thanks to John Cosgrove:

OK, I'll try to spare y'all. Will the fellow who thinks it is a good idea to talk to cops please just PM me with the rationale.

Hey bill,

I just had the pm thing open and I started to type a response to your question. It then dawned on me that is be letting some guys on here dictate my actions or responses on this public forum. Last I checked none of the people talking were or are moderators. Ironically they cry when others attempt to moderate but they in turn do it. With that preamble over I'll attempt to give an example and reasoning.

If you KNOW you had nothing to do with a crime then you should SPEAK up and say that to an officer. If an officer stops you because they have a description of a bad guy and you meet said description (not hard) you can easily clear yourself by speaking.

For example.... if you were somewhere else or with someone else that can clear you without a doubt then SAY that.

Officer- hey we got a call a man matching your description just did (insert crime) over there (insert place).

Citizen- no sir I was never even over there or anywhere near it. Look I just stepped out of this (insert store). You can ask the clerk i was on there for 20 minutes looking at (insert product).

Officer- ok wait here.

Officer checks your story let's you go on the spot.

Let's change citizens response...

Citizen- I want a lawyer am I being detained!?

Officer- ok now your being placed in handcuffs and will be transported back to the scene of the crime for a "bring back" ID.

See the difference? You can assist them in clearing your name.

I personally don't give a rats behind what anyone posts or any videos there are that say otherwise. If you've done nothing wrong then talking and attempting to clear up an obvious mistake is possible.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

"The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

Guess what? That's what you're going to have to do in my case. I don't talk to the police because the consequences could be much greater for talking than for not. And your scenario is highly unlikely compared to the likelihood of the stops I have already been unlawfully subjected to!

Anyone got a rational retort? His post was rational, but can easily be refuted. Remember, he is not the person you are trying to convince. You can't. Your target is the people reading and not responding. Right now, HE has the upper hand in swaying them.

Anyone got a rational retort? His post was rational, but can easily be refuted. Remember, he is not the person you are trying to convince. You can't. Your target is the people reading and not responding. Right now, HE has the upper hand in swaying them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

It would seem the OP did not find his post rational, and he is the person to convince. His upper hand has hair growing on the palm.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

I seen more people convict them self's by talking to the police then not talking.

Answer politely the questions you are required to but saying any more can lead to problems.

I am affirm believer in, I well only answer questions with my lawyer present.

The more serious the likely charges, the more serious the request for an lawyer.

For simple traffic violations like speeding remaining silent is a good idea.

Police are very good at getting some one to admit their guilt.

Answering a simple question like where are you coming from could put you in the area of homicide that you didn't know any thing about. Leading to what time you were there, leading was any body with you leading to many other questions.

Ah, rationality. I would disagree with the speeding though. If it is minor crap, like speeding, when I am indeed caught, being deferential to the officer and making him feel secure has manipulated him every time into a warning. I have never gotten a speeding ticket.

Police need two things for a detention or an arrest~~~PC or RAS. If they only have RAS they cannot make a arrest legally only on RAS. If they have PC, they do not need a statement to make an arrest.

Either the officer has PC or not, if he does not and cuffs and stuffs as Primus suggested he has violated your civil rights. Transporting is past detention, it is a arrest. A officers only purpose of asking questions is to get evidence, so he can cuff and stuff. I expect most police officers know this.

Don't talk to police without a attorney!

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.